If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

imported post

Not related to open carry, but I honor this guy Peter's for sticking to his gun's, or moral ethic's in taking this to the top. The attorney sounds like one that might be of some help if someone get's a lame obstruction offense for open carry. See todays news article in the Kenosha News. Article http://www.kenoshanews.com/article_c...cleNum=3035584

Wished I had the money and time to challange such offenses when speed trapped on 94 and highway C. In which I travel the road every day and the picked the wrong pickup truck to pull over instead of the one actually speeding by me. You may want to keep this attorney's name in your back wallet. Rex Anderegg of Milwaukee.

imported post

justice4all wrote:

Not related to open carry, but I honor this guy Peter's for sticking to his gun's, or moral ethic's in taking this to the top. The attorney sounds like one that might be of some help if someone get's a lame obstruction offense for open carry. See todays news article in the Kenosha News. Article http://www.kenoshanews.com/article_c...cleNum=3035584

Wished I had the money and time to challange such offenses when speed trapped on 94 and highway C. In which I travel the road every day and the picked the wrong pickup truck to pull over instead of the one actually speeding by me. You may want to keep this attorney's name in your back wallet. Rex Anderegg of Milwaukee.

imported post

MADISON - A state appeals court threw out a Twin Lakes man's conviction Wednesday due to a sheriff's deputy's provocative driving tactics.

The District 2 Court of Appeals concluded that not only did Deputy Jon Thomas Jones lack reasonable suspicion to pull over Michael D. Peters last May but Jones' close following of Peters prompted Peters' "unusual" driving that led to the traffic stop.

The appeals court determined that Jones engaged in "provocative behavior in his search for drunk drivers," when he followed Peters, who was driving to his Twin Lakes home after working the second shift at the Chrysler Kenosha Engine Plant.

Peters' attorney, Rex Anderegg of Milwaukee, claimed on appeal that Jones was trying to "flush out drunk drivers by provoking them with aggressive driving behavior," according to the decision.

On the night of the incident, Peters, 56, pulled into a fire station parking lot in order to get away from the car following him. Peters returned to the road and soon noticed that the car that had followed him was a sheriff's squad car now parked along the road.

After Peters passed the squad car, it pulled out behind him. Believing he was being pursued, Peters pulled over.

Jones approached Peters' truck and asked Peters for identification. Peters refused and asked why he was being followed. Jones told Peters to step out of the truck and eventually Jones unlocked the door, unbuckled Peters' seat belt and arrested him for obstruction of an officer.

Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Michael Wilk denied Peters' motions that the traffic stop was illegal, finding that pulling into the fire station was "unusual" and gave Jones reasonable suspicion to investigate. A jury found Peters guilty, and Wilk imposed a $287 fine.

Police can pull over a motorist if there is reasonable suspicion the driver is violating a law. However, Wilk failed to address whether Jones' actions provoked Peters' driving, according to the appeals decision.

"The law does not condone the successful prosecution of offenses that are caused by the state's agents. Where reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop stems from behavior caused by the state itself through the actions of a law enforcement officer, the public interest in allowing the violator to claim a defense outweighs the public interest in prosecution," Judge Harry Snyder wrote in the eight-page opinion.

Peters' arrest for obstruction must be dismissed, according to the decision. Although Jones claimed that Sheriff's Department policy makes refusal to produce identification obstruction, the appeals court disagreed, stating the failure to identify oneself by itself doesn't constitute obstruction.

State law requires motorists to carry their driver's license and produce it on demand from an officer legally performing his duties. Failure to do so is obstruction, the state argued on appeal.

The appeals court didn't allow consideration of that argument because it wasn't raised before Wilk and because Peters was arrested for obstruction, not for failure to carry a license.

Although Peters could have taken the district attorney's offer to plead no contest to a non-criminal offense and pay the fine, he risked trial and spending more money on the appeal because "he felt so strongly the officer's behavior was inappropriate," said Anderegg.

"He wasn't willing to play the plea-bargain game and cut his losses when he hadn't done anything wrong," said Anderegg.

A call to Assistant District Attorney Crystal Jensen, who prosecuted the case, wasn't returned before deadline.

justice4all wrote:

Not related to open carry, but I honor this guy Peter's for sticking to his gun's, or moral ethic's in taking this to the top. The attorney sounds like one that might be of some help if someone get's a lame obstruction offense for open carry. See todays news article in the Kenosha News. Article http://www.kenoshanews.com/article_c...cleNum=3035584

Wished I had the money and time to challange such offenses when speed trapped on 94 and highway C. In which I travel the road every day and the picked the wrong pickup truck to pull over instead of the one actually speeding by me. You may want to keep this attorney's name in your back wallet. Rex Anderegg of Milwaukee.

imported post

I'm glad the guy had the time and money to defend himself. I have been a victim of a similar situation but was not arrested (although it was threatened several times) as I did comply once a supervisor arrived and had not been drinking or doing anything else illegal.

Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

The charge was bogus and not warranted.

The deputy is an odd ball and does not represent all LEOs out there.

I feel for LEO they have one of the hardest jobs out there, but it's getting harder and harder for me to trust an officer. Back when I was a kid they were the guys you could count on to tell the truth and help you. My heroes.....not any more. I guess all it takes is a few bad apples.

It saddens me to see this is the sign of the times.....you can't trust anybody anymore.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

The charge was bogus and not warranted.

The deputy is an odd ball and does not represent all LEOs out there.

I absolutely agree. No single LEO represents ALL LEOs out there. While I agree that this is not overly common, I have seen it, heard of it and personally experienced it to enough of a degree that I believe it is wider spread that you may like to think it is.

ufcfanvt wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

That is correct. He doesn't and neither do you though you are an apologist.

I don't ususally back up LEO229, but do you actually believe that this guy does, in fact, represent the LEO community by doing what he did?
Would most LEO's do this? I would say no.

The guy seems like an odd ball and I [sic] not sure what could have happened in your life to think otherwise.

I would agree on the general point that LEO229 is a police apologist, but this instance isn't representative of that.

Ufcfanvt, look again at what LEO wrote and how Doug responded. Doug is saying to LEO229, "What you said is correct. And while the deputy in the news story does not represent all LEOs, neither do you LEO229, represent all LEOs although you LEO229 are an apologist for other LEOs" But that was really long and repetitive so he just said "He doesn't and neither do you though you are an apologist."

Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

imported post

Kastaway wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

The charge was bogus and not warranted.

The deputy is an odd ball and does not represent all LEOs out there.

I feel for LEO they have one of the hardest jobs out there, but it's getting harder and harder for me to trust an officer. Back when I was a kid they were the guys you could count on to tell the truth and help you. My heroes.....not any more. I guess all it takes is a few bad apples.

It saddens me to see this is the sign of the times.....you can't trust anybody anymore.

Sorry LEO229 you have a tuff job....stay safe.

Back in my home town we had a Sheriff's office and some moron deputies.

I remember the Sheriff ordering me in his car and then demanding I show him my shoe threads. I know EXACTLY what he was looking for since a neighbor of mine kicked in a door to a summer cabin.

He then accused ME of breaking into a cabin behind my house. Had he been kind to me I would have told him anything he wanted to know. I really did not care for the neighbor kid so what did Icare.

I learned at that moment the importance in being kind and giving someone the benefit of the doubt. So to this day... I treat ALL people I meet with kindness in the hopes that they will tell me what I need to know.

And it has worked! I knew back in the day as a child you did not need to be a hard ass to get a confession or information. People want to be treated with a certain level of respect.

But this is not something they teach in the academy. This is a life lesson you have to discover on your own to see that it works.

And now with the news broadcasting stories only aboutall the "bad cops" out there this is how people begin to see ALL cops. There are far more good cops than bad but people do not comment on them.

So I do not blame anyone for having a distrust in the police. They have been programmed and indoctrinated by the media for years.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Kastaway wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

The charge was bogus and not warranted.

The deputy is an odd ball and does not represent all LEOs out there.

I feel for LEO they have one of the hardest jobs out there, but it's getting harder and harder for me to trust an officer. Back when I was a kid they were the guys you could count on to tell the truth and help you. My heroes.....not any more. I guess all it takes is a few bad apples.

It saddens me to see this is the sign of the times.....you can't trust anybody anymore.

Sorry LEO229 you have a tuff job....stay safe.

Back in my home town we had a Sheriff's office and some moron deputies.

I remember the Sheriff ordering me in his car and then demanding I show him my shoe threads. I know EXACTLY what he was looking for since a neighbor of mine kicked in a door to a summer cabin.

He then accused ME of breaking into a cabin behind my house. Had he been kind to me I would have told him anything he wanted to know. I really did not care for the neighbor kid so what did Icare.

I learned at that moment the importance in being kind and giving someone the benefit of the doubt. So to this day... I treat ALL people I meet with kindness in the hopes that they will tell me what I need to know.

And it has worked! I knew back in the day as a child you did not need to be a hard ass to get a confession or information. People want to be treated with a certain level of respect.

But this is not something they teach in the academy. This is a life lesson you have to discover on your own to see that it works.

And now with the news broadcasting stories only aboutall the "bad cops" out there this is how people begin to see ALL cops. There are far more good cops than bad but people do not comment on them.

So I do not blame anyone for having a distrust in the police. They have been programmed and indoctrinated by the media for years.

+1/2 for your understanding as to how to treat people and your philosophy on your job. The other half was lost because you do it, by your words, "in the hopes that they will tell me what I need to know" rather than because it is the polite, right and moral way to treat your fellow human beings, especially when you have some authority over them.

I do have to disagree with the end of your post though as to why people don't trust hte police. IMO, people don't trust the police because they have met far too many LEOs exactly like the Sheriff and deputies in your story. I can certainly tell you that is where my negative opinions come from. And while the news does broadcast negative stories, over the years we have had a near continuous string of TV shows and movies showing LEOs in a positive and often heroic light.

Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

+1/2 for your understanding as to how to treat people and your philosophy on your job. The other half was lost because you do it, by your words, "in the hopes that they will tell me what I need to know" rather than because it is the polite, right and moral way to treat your fellow human beings, especially when you have some authority over them.

I do have to disagree with the end of your post though as to why people don't trust hte police. IMO, people don't trust the police because they have met far too many LEOs exactly like the Sheriff and deputies in your story. I can certainly tell you that is where my negative opinions come from. And while the news does broadcast negative stories, over the years we have had a near continuous string of TV shows and movies showing LEOs in a positive and often heroic light.

You have actually read it wrong and did not post it all...

"I treat ALL people I meet with kindness in the hopes that they will tell me what I need to know."

I hope that by my treating them kindly as I always do anyway.... they will be willing to help me out.

Maybe I should have said.....

"I treat ALL people I meet with kindness and hope that they will also tell me what I need to know.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

+1/2 for your understanding as to how to treat people and your philosophy on your job. The other half was lost because you do it, by your words, "in the hopes that they will tell me what I need to know" rather than because it is the polite, right and moral way to treat your fellow human beings, especially when you have some authority over them.

snip

I hope that by my treating them kindly as I always do anyway.... they will be willing to help me out.

This is what I mean to portray.

With your clarification as to your meaning, I amend my earlier comments to simply:
+1

I really do think you are one of the GG LEO229, despite our disagreements, which are usually on fine points rather than big picture issues anyway.

Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

imported post

imported post

I think that we sould do away with police and go back to the way it was when the country was founded. I have read several posts on here pointing out that when the constitution was written there were no police so why do we need one now? Since it has been proven that police can not be trusted to either do their job or be honest then why waste money supporting a police force. Just let everyone carry a gun and sort their own problems out.

imported post

PT111 wrote:

I think that we sould do away with police and go back to the way it was when the country was founded. I have read several posts on here pointing out that when the constitution was written there were no police so why do we need one now? Since it has been proven that police can not be trusted to either do their job or be honest then why waste money supporting a police force. Just let everyone carry a gun and sort their own problems out.

imported post

I had almost the same thing happen to me in Ohio when I was 22 years old. An Ohio state trooper drove extraordinarily erratically, trying to tell me something by yelling through his open window as he drove right next to me, not quite in his own lane. I was a poor college student and driving an older car and apparently I topped outat 58 mph in a 55 mph zone while the trooper was directly behind me. The trooper was upset because I had the nerve to "speed" as he was directly behind me. Anyway, I called 911 while he was driving like this, and asked for a trooper because I feared for my safety - I thought he might cause a wreck. I pulled over when he activated his lights, and the officer made a very big deal out of my having "admitted" to a crimewhen I acknowledged that I could have been going as many as 2 or 3 miles over 55 at some moments while he was behind me. I told him I called for help because he scared me, especiallybecause I could not hear him at all and had no idea whatsoever what he was trying to yell at me through the open window. He said he was trying to give me "a warning" without pulling me over. He implied this was a favor on his part. I told hima trooper was on the way and hebecamevery angry, but drove away very shortly thereafter, telling me he was "letting me go" this time. When the trooper arrived, I asked where the nearest sub-station was to drive there to speak directly to a sgt to file a complaint. The trooper was curt and rude but told me. I went there and they barely spoke to me and made me wait over 60 minutes to speak to someone. This was a small sub-station of perhaps 3 or 4 employees total in an isolated part of Ohio. There was nothing going on, they were trying to get me to leave. Anyway, I eventually spoke to someone, then followed up the next day with a typed, 3 page faxed statement. About a month later I was back at JMU (working at the JMU Police Department) when I got the call - my complaint was "unproven" or something ambiguous like that. The officer did tell me that the trooper was informally counseled that next time he should have pulled someone like me over and given me a ticket (!) because communicating through the window could be dangerous.

PS - The overwhelming majority of police officers are nothing like this. It always struck me as interesting while working for the JMU PD that each local jurisdiction had a remarkably specific (and different)"reputation" and culture. I do think that bad officers are much more likely to be found in specific police cultures,and the folks at the very top make all the difference in this regard.

imported post

I had a cop tailgate me like that and I slammed on the brakes and he damn near rear-ended me. He got annoyed at this and threw his lights on and stopped me, asking why I was stopping in the middle of the road like that. I said it shouldn't be a problem if someone maintains "assured clear distance" (I think I made up a story aboutbraking for a squirrel in the road just to annoy him). He ran my ID for wants and warrants and let me go with some vague "warning," although he never identified anything I did wrong. They're usually busy running your plates when they follow so closely, so I'm surprised he was able to stop.

imported post

Legba wrote:

I had a cop tailgate me like that and I slammed on the brakes and he damn near rear-ended me. He got annoyed at this and threw his lights on and stopped me, asking why I was stopping in the middle of the road like that. I said it shouldn't be a problem if someone maintains "assured clear distance" (I think I made up a story aboutbraking for a squirrel in the road just to annoy him). He ran my ID for wants and warrants and let me go with some vague "warning," although he never identified anything I did wrong. They're usually busy running your plates when they follow so closely, so I'm surprised he was able to stop.

-ljp

There are times when a cop does need to get close to see the tags. Like when you have a tinted cover and it is hard to make out the letters. Is that a "B" or "8"... "1" or "I"....

The best thing you can do is keep lowing down.....

If you get stopped.... you can get their name and file a complaint they were tailgating you.

In Virginia.... if you slammed on your brakes for no "obvious" or "reasonable"reason with a car tailgating you... it could get you a RD ticket.